Unclassified NSA document on .NET 2.0 Framework Security

[sbradcpa at pacbell.net (Susan Bradley, CPA )]

Why shouldn't they be asked to think about it?  Especially now.

I do.  I install Vista and find out how many of my apps don't like it.  
Go grab a copy of Luabuglight and watch Aaron Margosis' stuff.  Why 
should I as an Admin have to care about this stuff  after Developers 
that don't care about it code software?

Okay yeah so the management has to have the religion of it but if 
developers at their core do not care then IMHO I as a consumer of code 
need to ensure that they do.  You can't add it on afterwards, so if the 
developers doing the coding do not care because ultimately management 
does not, we still have a fundamental problem in the software industry.

Dana Epp's ramblings at the Sanctuary: Introduction to Microsoft's SDL 
Threat Modeling Tool:
http://silverstr.ufies.org/blog/archives/001060.html

He's a developer and he cares.  And he definitely cares about least priv 
and ensure that his code doesn't ask anything that it shouldn't.

Stephen Craig Evans wrote:
> It's a real cop-out for you guys, as titans in the industry, to go
> after developers. I'm disappointed in both of you. And Gary, you said
> "One of the main challenges is that developers have a hard time
> thinking about the principle of least privilege ".
>
> Developers are NEVER asked to think about the principle of least
> privilege. Or your world of software security must be very very very
> different from mine (and I think my world at least equals   yours but
> by about 2 billion people more, which might be irrelevant now but a
> little more relevant in the future :-)
>
> With the greatest, deepest respect to both of you,
> Stephen
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Stephen Craig Evans
> <stephencraig.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
> > Gunnar,
> >
> > Developers have no power. You should be talking to the decision makers.
> >
> > As an example, to instill the importance of software security, I talk
> > to decision makers: project managers, architects, CTOs (admittedly,
> > this is a blurred line - lots of folks call themselves architects). If
> > I go to talk about software security to developers, I know from
> > experience that I am probably wasting my time. Even if they do care,
> > they have no effect overall.
> >
> > Your target and blame is wrong; that's all that I am saying.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Gunnar Peterson
> > <gunnar at arctecgroup.net> wrote:
> >     
> > > Sorry I didn't realize "developers" is an offensive ivory tower in other
> > > parts of the world, in my world its a compliment.
> > >
> > > -gunnar
> > >
> > > On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Stephen Craig Evans wrote:
> > >
> > >       
> > > > HI,
> > > >
> > > > "maybe the problem with least privilege is that it requires that
> > > > developers:..."
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, your US/UK ivory towers don't exist in other parts of the world.
> > > > Developers have no say in what they do. Nor, do they care about
> > > > software security and why should they care?
> > > >
> > > > So, at least, change your nomenclature and not say "developers". It
> > > > offends me because you are putting the onus of knowing about software
> > > > security on the wrong people.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Gunnar Peterson
> > > > <gunnar at arctecgroup.net> wrote:
> > > >         
> > > > > maybe the problem with least privilege is that it requires that
> > > > > developers:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. define the entire universe of subjects and objects
> > > > > 2. define all possible access rights
> > > > > 3. define all possible relationships
> > > > > 4. apply all settings
> > > > > 5. figure out how to keep 1-4 in synch all the time
> > > > >
> > > > > do all of this before you start writing code and oh and there are
> > > > > basically no tools that smooth the adoption of the above.
> > > > >
> > > > > i don't think us software security people are helping anybody out in
> > > > > 2008 by doing ritual incantations of a paper from the mid 70s that may
> > > > > or may not apply to modern computing and anyhow is riddled with ideas
> > > > > that have never been implemented in any large scale systems
> > > > >
> > > > > compare these two statements
> > > > >
> > > > > Statement 1. Saltzer and Schroeder:
> > > > > "f) Least privilege: Every program and every user of the system should
> > > > > operate using the least set of privileges necessary to complete the
> > > > > job. Primarily, this principle limits the damage that can result from
> > > > > an accident or error. It also reduces the number of potential
> > > > > interactions among privileged programs to the minimum for correct
> > > > > operation, so that unintentional, unwanted, or improper uses of
> > > > > privilege are less likely to occur. Thus, if a question arises related
> > > > > to misuse of a privilege, the number of programs that must be audited
> > > > > is minimized. Put another way, if a mechanism can provide "firewalls,"
> > > > > the principle of least privilege provides a rationale for where to
> > > > > install the firewalls. The military security rule of "need-to-know" is
> > > > > an example of this principle."
> > > > >
> > > > > Statement 2. David Gelernter's Manifesto:
> > > > > "28. Metaphors have a profound effect on computing: the file-cabinet
> > > > > metaphor traps us in a "passive" instead of "active" view of
> > > > > information management that is fundamentally wrong for computers.
> > > > >
> > > > > 29. The rigid file and directory system you are stuck with on your Mac
> > > > > or PC was designed by programmers for programmers ? and is still a
> > > > > good system for programmers. It is no good for non-programmers. It
> > > > > never was, and was never intended to be.
> > > > >
> > > > > 30. If you have three pet dogs, give them names. If you have 10,000
> > > > > head of cattle, don't bother. Nowadays the idea of giving a name to
> > > > > every file on your computer is ridiculous."
> > > > >
> > > > > Conclusion(gp): Least Privilege is the point where the practical
> > > > > matter of applying Saltzer and Schroeder's principles breaks down in
> > > > > modern systems. Its a deployment issue, and a matter of insufficient
> > > > > models and modes.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://1raindrop.typepad.com/1_raindrop/2008/06/mashup-of-the-titans.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember the 1990s when there were all these search engines that
> > > > > required you tag up all the content and put it in hierarchical
> > > > > directories and so on? Well what happened? Google came along and ate
> > > > > their lunch. When the problem is information overload, telling
> > > > > everyone to go out and label everything is not gonna work.
> > > > >
> > > > > -gunnar
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 24, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Gary McGraw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >           
> > > > > > Sadly this non-adoption of privileged/managed code (filled with
> > > > > > blank stares) has been the case ever since the Java security days a
> > > > > > decade ago.  One of the main challenges is that developers have a
> > > > > > hard time thinking about the principle of least privilege and its
> > > > > > implications regarding the capabilities they should request.  Dinis
> > > > > > is brave to set such thinking as a target.  I've settled (after ten
> > > > > > years) with getting developers just to utter the word "security."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All together now..."security".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gem
> > > > > >
> > > > > > company www.cigital.com
> > > > > > podcast www.cigital.com/silverbullet
> > > > > > blog www.cigital.com/justiceleague
> > > > > > book www.swsec.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/24/08 12:31 PM, "Mike Lyman" <mlyman-cissp at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dinis Cruz wrote:
> > > > > >             
> > > > > > > Don't get me wrong, this is a great document if one is interested in
> > > > > > > writing applications that use CAS (Code Access Security), I would
> > > > > > > love
> > > > > > > for this to be widely used.
> > > > > > >               
> > > > > > When we recommended recommending CAS during a review of the U.S.
> > > > > > Defense
> > > > > > Information System Agency's new Application Security and Development
> > > > > > Security Technical Implementation Guide earlier this year we were met
> > > > > > with what amounted to blank stares. (At least it seemed like that
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > it was a phone conference.) Some on the call understood it and agreed
> > > > > > with the recommendation but those hosting the call and doing the
> > > > > > writing
> > > > > > didn't seem to grasp it. It may be a while before we see too many
> > > > > > adopting this or requiring it for a while.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike Lyman
> > > > > > mlyman at west-point.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L at securecoding.org
> > > > > > List information, subscriptions, etc -
> > > > > > http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
> > > > > > List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
> > > > > > SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC
> > > > > > (http://www.KRvW.com
> > > > > > )
> > > > > > as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L at securecoding.org
> > > > > > List information, subscriptions, etc -
> > > > > > http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
> > > > > > List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
> > > > > > SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC
> > > > > > (http://www.KRvW.com
> > > > > > )
> > > > > > as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > >             
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L at securecoding.org
> > > > > List information, subscriptions, etc -
> > > > > http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
> > > > > List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
> > > > > SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC
> > > > > (http://www.KRvW.com)
> > > > > as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >           
> > >       
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L at securecoding.org
> List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l
> List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
> SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com)
> as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community.
> _______________________________________________
>
>